DuPonte, Gabriel v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260852)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 17, 2026 SPR26/0852 Amanda Matton Staff Services Fall River Police Department 685 Pleasant Street Fall River, MA 02721 Dear Ms. Matton: On March 11, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Fall River Police Department (Department) seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, I understand that the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Gabriel DuPonte. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 4, 2026, Mr. DuPonte requested the following “records related to a police stop involving [an identified individual] . . . on . . . January 22, 2026 [at] . . . [a]pproximately 8:15-8:40 p.m. . . . in the area of William S. Canning Boulevard near Papa Gino’s, Fall River, Massachusetts[:]” [1] All body-worn camera footage from every officer involved, including footage beginning at least fifteen (15) minutes prior to the stop and ending at least thirty (30) minutes after the stop concluded[;] [2] All cruiser dash camera footage from responding vehicles[;] [3] All radio communications and dispatch audio recordings related to this incident, including any transmissions describing the suspect’s race, clothing, or updates provided during the stop[;] [4] The complete CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) report and log[;] [5] Any 911 calls associated with this incident[;] [6] All incident reports, supplemental reports, field interrogation/observation reports, and any use-of-force reports generated in connection with this stop[;] [7] The names, badge numbers, and assignments of all officers involved. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Amanda Matton SPR26/0852 Page 2 March 17, 2026 Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4).

Amanda Matton SPR26/0852 Page 3 March 17, 2026 Current Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Department requests to assess fees for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In support of its request, the Department states, “these records contain personal identifiers, dates of birth, social security numbers, and phone numbers, all of which must be redacted prior to release.” In light of the information provided in its petition, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department states the following concerning its request to charge a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour: [T]he lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill and access to complete the segregation and redaction of Body Worn Camera (BWC) records, turret tapes, and 911 audio, is Detective Will Pavao whose normal hourly rate is $35.68 hr. The process of redacting body worn camera footage is technically demanding and requires specialized training in the Axon redaction platform. Axon’s software involves advanced tools for motion tracking, audio filtering, and pixel-based masking, all of which must be applied manually to ensure compliance with privacy laws. The knowledge and experience of performing these redactions falls solely on Detective Pavao. Each video must be reviewed frame by frame to identify and obscure sensitive material. . . . Based on its petition, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive body worn camera records, the request for these records could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Consequently, I find the Department may assess a fee limited to $35.68 per hour for segregation and redaction of the body worn camera records responsive to Mr. DuPonte’s request. Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, as described above, the Department may assess a fee limited to $35.68 per hour to review the body worn camera records. Please note, Mr. DuPonte has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c),

Amanda Matton SPR26/0852 Page 4 March 17, 2026 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gabriel DuPonte